Wecom Trust And 2 ANR. v. Union Of India And 5 ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.479 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.421 OF 2011 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009 Wecom Trust & Others .... Petitioners Vs.

The Union of India & Others .... Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.355 OF 2012 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009 Anil Parab .... Applicant In the matter between Wecom Trust & Others .... Petitioners Vs.

The Union of India & Others .... Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.378 OF 2016 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009 Wecom Trust & Others .... Applicants In the matter between Wecom Trust & Others .... Petitioners Vs.

The Union of India & Others .... Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.298 OF 2017 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009

Wecom Trust .... Applicant In the matter between Wecom Trust & Others .... Petitioners Vs.

The Union of India & Others .... Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.168 OF 2016 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2009 Dipak Kumar Chattopadhyay .... Applicant/ Intervener In the matter between Wecom Trust & Others .... Petitioners Vs.

The Union of India & Others .... Respondents Mr. Vishesh Kalra for the Petitioners.

Mr. Parag Vyas with Mr. H.V. Mehta for Respondent No.1-UoI.

Ms Geeta Shastri, Addl. GP, for the Respondent-State. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar & Ms K.H. Mastakar for the MCGM.

Ms Anchita Nair i/by Ms Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent No.4.

Mr. Vikas Warekar i/by Warekar & Warekar for the Mumbai Cricket Association.

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : JANUARY 08, 2020 P.C:

1.

In the light of the orders passed on the previous occasions and the affidavit of compliance, we do not think that the notices of motion should be kept pending.

2.

The affidavit in reply addresses the concerns of the litigants and particularly the PIL petitioners before us. 3.

Needless to clarify that in matters of this nature, when the larger challenge is pending, the vigilant members of the Civil Society and the people residing in and around Shivaji Park would be well advised to keep a watch and vigil on the activities at this venue/Shivaji Park. It is not that the Court alone should be approached and converted into a watchman to keep such vigil as is expected by this PIL litigants. All the afore-stated motions are, therefore, disposed of.

4.

List the PIL and the chamber summons on 15-1-2020.

(R.I. CHAGLA, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) by SURESH JAGDISH SAJNAWAT Date:

2020.01.13 11:22:59 +0530 SURESH JAGDISH SAJNAWAT